DREAM Flood Forecasting and Flood Hazard Mapping For Davao River Basin

© University of the Philippines and the Department of Science and Technology 2015
Published by the UP Training Center for Applied Geodesy and Photogrammetry (TCAGP)
College of Engineering
University of the Philippines Diliman
Quezon City
1101 PHILIPPINES
This research work is supported by the Department of Science and Technology (DOST) Grants-
in-Aid Program and is to be cited as:
UP TCAGP (2015), Flood Forecasting and Flood Hazard Mapping for Davao River Basin, Disaster
Risk and Exposure Assessment for Mitigation (DREAM) Program, DOST-Grants-In-Aid Program,
60 pp.
The text of this information may be copied and distributed for research and educational
purposes with proper acknowledgment. While every care is taken to ensure the accuracy of
this publication, the UP TCAGP disclaims all responsibility and all liability (including without
limitation, liability in negligence) and costs which might incur as a result of the materials in this
publication being inaccurate or incomplete in any way and for any reason.
For questions/queries regarding this report, contact:
Alfredo Mahar Francisco A. Lagmay, PhD.

Project Leader, Flood Modeling Component, DREAM Program
Quezon City, Philippines 1101
Email: amfal2@yahoo.com
Enrico C. Paringit, Dr. Eng.

Program Leader, DREAM Program
Quezon City, Philippines 1101
E-mail: paringit@gmail.com
National Library of the Philippines

ISBN: 978-621-95189-8-7
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 About the DREAM Program ................................................................................ 2
1.2 Objectives and Target Outputs ........................................................................... 2
1.3 General Methodological Framework ................................................................. 3
1.4 Scope of Work of the Flood Modeling Component .......................................... 4
1.5 Limitations ........................................................................................................... 4
1.6 Operational Framework ..................................................................................... 4
THE DAVAO RIVER BASIN ................................................................................................... 5
METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................. 9
3.1 Pre-processing and Data Used ........................................................................... 10
3.1.1 Elevation Data ....................................................................................... 10
3.1.1.1 Hydro-corrected SRTM DEM .................................................. 10
3.1.1.2 LiDAR DEM ............................................................................. 10
3.1.2 Land Cover and Soil Type ..................................................................... 12
3.1.3 Hydrometry and Rainfall Data ............................................................. 12
3.1.3.1 Hydrometry for Waan Bridge, Davao City ............................. 12
3.1.3.2 Rainfall Intensity Duration Frequency (RIDF) ........................ 13
3.1.4 Rating Curves ....................................................................................... 15
3.2 Rainfall-Runoff Hydrologic Model Development .............................................. 16
3.2.1 Watershed Delineation and Basin Model Pre-processing ....................... 16
3.2.2 Basin Model Calibration ....................................................................... 18
3.3 HEC-HMS Hydrologic Simulations for DIscharge Computations using
PAGASA RIDF Curves ................................................................................ 19
3.3.1 Discharge Computation using Rainfall-Runoff Hydrologic Model ........ 19
3.3.2 Discharge Computation using Dr. Horritt’s Recommended
Hydrological Method ........................................................................ 19
3.3.2.1 Determination of Catchment Properties ............................. 20
3.3.2.2 HEC-HMS Implementation ................................................... 21
3.3.2.3 Discharge validation against other estimates ......................... 22
3.4 Hazard and Flow Depth Mapping using FLO-2D ............................................... 23
3.4.1 Floodplain Delineation ......................................................................... 23
3.4.2 Flood Model Generation ..................................................................... 23
3.4.3 Flow Depth and Hazard Map Simulation ............................................ 27
3.4.4 Hazard Map and Flow Depth Map Creation ....................................... 29
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................................................................................ 31
4.1 Efficiency of HEC-HMS Rainfall-Runoff Models Calibrated Based on
Field Survey and Gauges Data ..................................................................... 32
4.2 Calculated Outflow Hydrographs and Dicharge Values for
Different Rainfall Return Periods ................................................................. 33
4.2.1 Hydrograph Using the Rainfall-Runoff Model .................................... 33
4.2.2 Discharge Data Using Dr. Horritt’s Recommended
Hydrological Method ........................................................................ 37
4.3 Flood Hazard and Flow Depth Maps ................................................................. 38
BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................... 45
Table of Contents
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Davao Model Basin Parameters ......................................................... 48
Appendix B. Davao Model Reach Parameters ........................................................ 54
Appendix C. Davao Floodplain HEC-HMS Simulation ............................................. 56
List of Figures
Figure 1. The general methodological framework of the program .......................... 3
Figure 2. The operational framework and specific work flow of the
Flood Modeling Component ....................................................................... 4
Figure 3. Davao River Basin Location Map ................................................................. 6
Figure 4. Davao River Basin Soil Map .......................................................................... 7
Figure 5. Davao River Basin Land Cover Map ............................................................. 7
Figure 6. Summary of data needed for the purpose of flood modeling ................... 10
Figure 7. Digital Elevation Model (DEM) of the Davao River Basin using
Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) technology ...................................... 11
Figure 8. The 1-meter resolution LiDAR data resampled to a 10-meter raster grid
in GIS software to ensure that values are properly adjusted ..................... 11
Figure 9. Stitched Quickbird images for the Davao floodplain .................................. 12
Figure 10. Waan Bridge, Davao rainfall and outflow data used for modeling ............ 13
Figure 11. Thiessen Polygon of Rain Intensity Duration Frequency
(RIDF) Stations for the whole Philippines ................................................... 14
Figure 12. Davao Rainfall-Intensity Duration Frequency (RIDF) curves ...................... 15
Figure 13. Water level vs. Discharge Curve for Waan Bridge, Davao .......................... 15
Figure 14. The Rainfall-Runoff Basin Model Development Scheme ............................ 16
Figure 15. Davao HEC-HMS Model domain generated by WMS .................................. 17
Figure 16. Location of rain gauge used for the calibration of Davao
HEC-HMS Model ............................................................................................ 18
Figure 17. Different data needed as input for HEC-HMS discharge simulation using
Dr. Horritt’s recommended hydrology method .......................................... 19
Figure 18. Delineation of upper watershed for Davao floodplain discharge
computation .................................................................................................. 20
Figure 19. HEC-HMS simulation discharge results using Dr. Horritt’s Method ........... 22
Figure 20. Screenshot showing how boundary grid elements are defined by line ...... 24
Figure 21. Screenshots of PTS files when loaded into the FLO-2D program .............. 24
Figure 22. Areal image of Davao floodplain .................................................................. 25
Figure 23. Screenshot of Manning’s n-value rendering ............................................... 26
Figure 24. Flo-2D Mapper Pro General Procedure ........................................................ 27
Figure 25. Davao Floodplain Generated Hazard Maps using FLO-2D Mapper ............ 28
Figure 26. Davao floodplain generated flow depth map using FLO-2D Mapper ........ 28
Figure 27. Basic Layout and Elements of the Hazard Maps ......................................... 29
Figure 28. Outflow Hydrograph produced by the HEC-HMS model compared with
observed outflow ......................................................................................... 32
Figure 29. Sample DREAM Water Level Forecast ......................................................... 33
Figure 30. Outflow hydrograph generated using the Davao 5-Year RIDF ................... 34
Figure 31. Outflow hydrograph generated using the Davao 10-Year RIDF ................... 34
Figure 32. Outflow hydrograph generated using the Davao 25-Year RIDF ................. 35
Figure 35. Outflow hydrograph generated using the Davao 5-,25-, 100-Year RIDF ....... 37
Figure 36. 100-year Flood Hazard Map for Davao River Basin ..................................... 39
Figure 37. 100-year Flow Depth Map for Davao River Basin ........................................ 40
List of Tables
Figure 38. 25-year Flood Hazard Map for Davao River Basin ....................................... 41
Figure 39. 25-year Flow Depth Map for Davao River Basin ......................................... 42
Figure 40. 5-year Flood Hazard Map for Davao River Basin ........................................ 43
Figure 41. 5-year Flood Hazard Map for Davao River Basin ........................................ 44
Table 1. Methods used for the different calculation types for the hydrologic
elements ....................................................................................................... 17
Table 2. Summary of Davao discharge using Davao Station Rainfaill Intensity
Duration Frequency (RIDF) .......................................................................... 36
Table 3. Summary of Davao river discharge using the recommended hydrological
method by Dr. Horritt .................................................................................. 37
Table 4. Validation of river discharge estimate using the bankful method ............ 38
List of Equations
Equation 1. Rating Curve ................................................................................................. 15
Equation 2. Determination of maximum potential retention using
the average curve number of the catchment ............................................. 21
Equation 3. Lag Time Equation Calibrated for Philippine Setting ................................. 21
Equation 4. Ratio of river discharge of a 5-year rain return to a 2-year rain return
scenario from measured discharge data .................................................... 22
Equation 5. Discharge validation equation using bankful method ............................... 22
Equation 6. Bankful discharge equation using measurable channel parameters .......... 23
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ACDP Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler

AOI Area of Interest
ARG Automated Rain Gauge
AWLS Automated Water Level Sensor
DAC Data Acquisition Component
DEM Digital Elevation Model
DOST Department of Science and Technology
DPC Data Processing Component
DREAM Disaster Risk Exposure and Assessment for Mitigation
DTM Digital Terrain Model
DVC Data Validation Component
FMC Flood Modelling Component
GDS Grid Developer System
HEC-HMS Hydrologic Engineering Center – Hydrologic Modeling System
LiDAR Light Detecting and Ranging
PAGASA Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration
RIDF Rainfall Intensity Duration Frequency
SCS Soil Conservation Service
SRTM Shuttle Radar Topography Mission
UP-TCAGP UP Training Center for Applied Geodesy and Photogrammetry
Introduction
1
Introduction
1.1 About the DREAM Program

The UP Training Center for Applied Geodesy and Photogrammetry (UP TCAGP) conducts a re-
search program entitled “Nationwide Disaster Risk and Exposure Assessment for Mitigation
(DREAM) Program” funded by the Department of Science and Technology (DOST) Grants-in-
Aid Program. The DREAM Program aims to produce detailed, up-to-date, national elevation
dataset for 3D flood and hazard mapping to address disaster risk reduction and mitigation in
the country.
The DREAM Program consists of four components that operationalize the various stages of
implementation. The Data Acquisition Component (DAC) conducts aerial surveys to collect
Light Detecting and Ranging (LiDAR) data and aerial images in major river basins and priority
areas. The Data Validation Component (DVC) implements ground surveys to validate acquired
LiDAR data, along with bathymetric measurements to gather river discharge data. The Data
Processing Component (DPC) processes and compiles all data generated by the DAC and DVC.
Finally, the Flood Modeling Component (FMC) utilizes compiled data for flood modeling and
simulation.
Overall, the target output is a national elevation dataset suitable for 1:5000 scale mapping,
with 50 centimeter horizontal and vertical accuracies. These accuracies are achieved through
the use of state-of-the-art airborne Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) technology and ap-
pended with Synthetic-aperture radar (SAR) in some areas. It collects point cloud data at a
rate of 100,000 to 500,000 points per second, and is capable of collecting elevation data at a
rate of 300 to 400 square kilometers per day, per sensor
1.2 Objectives and Target Outputs

The program aims to achieve the following objectives:
a) To acquire a national elevation and resource dataset at sufficient resolution

to produce information necessary to support the different phases of
disaster management,
b) To operationalize the development of flood hazard models that would
produce updated and detailed flood hazard maps for the major river systems
in the country,
c) To develop the capacity to process, produce and analyze various proven
and potential thematic map layers from the 3D data useful for
government agencies,
d) To transfer product development technologies to government agencies
with geospatial information requirements, and,

e) To generate the following outputs
1) flood hazard map
2) digital surface model
3) digital terrain model and
4) orthophotograph.
2
Introduction
1.3 General Methodological Framework

The methodology to accomplish the program’s expected outputs are subdivided into four
(4) major components, as shown in Figure 1. Each component is described in detail in the
following section.
Figure 1. The general methodological framework of the program
3
Introduction
1.4 Scope of Work of the Flood Modeling Component

The scope of work of the Flood Modeling Component is listed as the following:
a) To develop the watershed hydrologic model of the Davao River Basin;
b) To compute the discharge values quantifying the amount of water entering
the floodplain using HEC-HMS;
c) To create flood simulations using hydrologic models of the Davao
floodplain using FLO-2D GDS Pro; and
d) To prepare the static flood hazard and flow depth maps for the
Davao river basin.
1.5 Limitations
This research is limited to the usage of the available data, such as the following:
1. Digital Elevation Models (DEM) surveyed by the Data Acquisition
Component (DAC) and processed by the Data Processing Component (DPC)
2. Outflow data surveyed by the Data Validation and Bathymetric
Component (DVC)
3. Observed Rainfall from ASTI sensors
While the findings of this research could be further used in related-studies, the accuracy of
such is dependent on the accuracy of the available data. Also, this research adapts the limita-
tions of the software used: ArcGIS 10.2, HEC-GeoHMS 10.2 extension, WMS 9.1, HEC-HMS 3.5
and FLO-2D GDS Pro.
1.6 Operational Framework

The flow for the operational framework of the Flood Modeling Component is shown in Figure
2.
Figure 2. The operational framework and specific work flow of the Flood Modeling Component
4
The Davao River Basin
5
The Davao River Basin is located in the southern part of Mindanao. It is considered as the 15th
largest river basin in the Philippines. It is also considered as the largest of Davao City’s nine
(9) principal catchments, namely Lasang, Bunawan, Panacan, Matina, Davao, Talomo, Lipadas
and portions of Inawayan and Sibulan. It covers an estimated basin area of 1,623 square kilo-
meters.
Figure 3. Davao River Basin Location Map

It traverses from as far as the Salug River in San Fernando, Bukidnon and flows outward
through the provinces of Bukidnon, Davao del Sur, Davao del Norte and North Cotabato. It
opens eastward and drains into Gulf of Davao.
The land and soil characteristics are important parameters used in assigning the roughness
coefficient for different areas within the river basin. The roughness coefficient, also called
Manning’s coefficient, represents the variable flow of water in different land covers (i.e.
rougher, restricted flow within vegetated areas, smoother flow within channels and fluvial
environments).
The shape files of the soil and land cover were taken from the Bureau of Soils, which is under
the Department of Environment and Natural Resources Management, and National Mapping
and Resource Information Authority (NAMRIA). The soil and land cover of the Davao River
Basin are shown in Figures 4 and 5, respectively.
6
Figure 4. Davao River Basin Soil Map
Figure 5. Davao River Basin Land Cover Map
7
Methodology
9
Methodology
3.1 Pre-processing and Data Used

Flood modeling involved several data and parameters to achieve realistic simulations and out-
puts. Figure 6 shows a summary of the data needed to for the research.
Figure 6. Summary of data needed for the purpose of flood modeling
3.1.1 Elevation Data
3.1.1.1 Hydro Corrected SRTM DEM

With the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission Digital Elevation Model (SRTM DEM) data as an
input in determining the extent of the delineated water basin, the model was set-up. The
Digital Elevation Model (DEM) is a set of elevation values for a range of points within a des-
ignated area. SRTM DEM has a 90 meter spatial mosaic of the entire country. Survey data of
cross sections and profile points were integrated to the SRTM DEM for the hydro-correction.
3.1.1.2 LiDAR DEM

LiDAR was used to generate the Digital Elevation Model (DEM) of the different floodplains.
DEMs used for flood modeling were already converted to digital terrain models (DTMs) which
only show topography, and are thus cleared of land features such as trees and buildings.
These terrain features would allow water to flow realistically in the models.
Figure 7 shows an image of the DEM generated through LiDAR.
10
Methodology
Figure 7. Digital Elevation Model (DEM) of the Davao River Basin using Light Detection and
Ranging (LiDAR) technology
Elevation points were created from LiDAR DTMs. Since DTMs were provided as 1-meter spa-
tial resolution rasters (while flood models for Davao were created using a 10-meter grid), the
DTM raster had to be resampled to a raster grid with a 10-meter cell size using ArcGIS.
Figure 8. The 1-meter resolution LiDAR data resampled to a 10-meter raster grid in GIS soft-
ware to ensure that values are properly adjusted
11
Methodology
3.1.2 Land Cover and Soil Type

The land and soil characteristics are important parameters used in assigning the roughness
coefficient for different areas within the river basin. The roughness coefficient, also called
Manning’s coefficient, represents the variable flow of water in different land covers (i.e.
rougher, restricted flow within vegetated areas, smoother flow within channels and fluvial
environments).
A general approach was done for the Davao floodplain. Streams were identified against built-
up areas and rice fields. Identification was done visually using stitched Quickbird images from
Google Earth. Areas with different land covers are shown on Figure 9. Different Manning
n-values are assigned to each grid element coinciding with these main classifications during
the modeling phase.
Figure 9. Stitched Quickbird images for the Davao floodplain

3.1.3 Hydrometry and Rainfall Data
3.1.3.1 Hydrometry for Waan Bridge, Davao City

River outflow from Waan Bridge (9° 07’ 54.72233” N, 125° 34’ 58.22592” E) water level sensor
was used to calibrate the HEC-HMS model. This was recorded during 22-23 April, 2014. Peak
discharge of 107.99 cms occurred on 23 April, 2014 at 5:40.
12
Methodology
Figure 10. Waan Bridge, Davao rainfall and outflow data used for modeling
3.1.3.2 Rainfall Intensity Duration Frequency

The Philippine Atmospheric Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration (PAGASA)
computed Rainfall Intensity Duration Frequency (RIDF) values for the Davao Rain Gauge. This
station was chosen based on its proximity to the Davao watershed. The extreme values for
this watershed were computed based on a 26-year record.
Five return periods were used, namely, 5-, 10-, 25-, 50-, and 100-year RIDFs. All return periods
are 24 hours long and peaks after 12 hours.
13
Methodology
Figure 11. Thiessen Polygon of Rain Intensity Duration Frequency (RIDF) Stations for the
whole Philippines
14
Methodology
Figure 12. Davao Rainfall-Intensity Duration Frequency (RIDF) curves
The Davao outflow was computed for the five return periods, namely, 5-, 10-, 25-, 50-, and
100-year RIDFs.
3.1.4 Rating Curves

Rating curves were provided by DVC. This curve gives the relationship between the observed
water levels from the AWLS used and outflow watershed at the said locations.
Rating curves are expressed in the form of Equation 1 with the discharge (Q) as a function of
the gauge height (h) readings from CDO Bridge AWLS and constants (a and n).
Equation 1. Rating Curve
For Waan Bridge, the rating curve is expressed as Q = 3.4405e0.7363x as shown in Figure 13.
Figure 13. Water level vs. Discharge Curve for Waan Bridge, Davao
15
Methodology
3.2 Rainfall-Runoff Hydrologic Model Development

3.2.1 Watershed Delineation and Basin Model Pre-processing
The hydrologic model of Davao River Basin was developed using Watershed Modeling System
(WMS) version 9.1. The software was developed by Aquaveo, a water resources engineering
consulting firm in United States. WMS is a program capable of various watershed compu-
tations and hydrologic simulations. The hydrologic model development follows the scheme
shown in the Figure 14.
Figure 14. The Rainfall-Runoff Basin Model Development Scheme
Hydro-corrected SRTM DEM was used as the terrain for the basin model. The watershed de-
lineation and its hydrologic elements, namely the subbasins, junctions and reaches, were gen-
erated using WMS after importing the elevation data and stream networks.
The parameters for the subbasins and reaches were computed after the model domain was
created. There are several methods available for different calculation types for each subba-
sin and reach hydrologic elements. The methods used for this study is shown in Table 1. The
necessary parameter values are determined by the selected methods. The initial abstraction,
curve number, percentage impervious and manning’s coefficient of roughness, n, for each
subbasin were computed based on the soil type, land cover and land use data. The subbasin
time of concentration and storage coefficient were computed based on the analysis of the
topography of the basin.
16
Methodology
Figure 15. Davao HEC-HMS Model domain generated by WMS
Table 1. Methods used for the different calculation types for the hydrologic elements
Hydrologic Element Calculation Type Method
Loss Rate SCS Curve Number
Subbasin Transform Clark’s unit hydrograph
Baseflow Bounded recession
Reach Routing Muskingum-Cunge
17
Methodology
3.2.2 Basin Model Calibration

The basin model made using WMS was exported to Hydrologic Modeling System (HEC-HMS)
version 3.5, a software made by the Hydrologic Engineering Center of the US Army Corps of
Engineers, to create the final rainfall-runoff model. The developers described HEC-HMS as a
program designed to simulate the hydrologic processes of a dendritic watershed systems. In
this study, the rainfall-runoff model was developed to calculate inflow from the watershed to
the floodplain.
Precipitation data was taken from Panabo sensor, an automatic rain gauge (ARGs) installed
by the Department of Science and Technology – Advanced Science and Technology Institute
(DOST-ASTI). The location of the ARG is seen in Figure 16.
Total rainfall from Panabo rain gauge is 92.456 mm. Its peak rainfall is 35.052 mm which hap-
pened on 22 April, 2014 at 20:15. The lag time between the peak rainfall and peak discharge is
nine hours and 25 minutes.
Figure 16. Location of rain gauge used for the calibration of Davao HEC-HMS Model
The outflow hydrograph for the downstream-most discharge point with field data was also
encoded to the model as a basis for the calibration. Using the said data, HEC-HMS could per-
form rainfall-runoff simulation and the resulting outflow hydrograph was compared with the
observed hydrograph. The values of the parameters were adjusted and optimized in order
for the calculated outflow hydrograph to appear like the observed hydrograph. Acceptable
values of the subbasin and reach parameters from the manual and past literatures were con-
sidered in the calibration.
18
Methodology
3.3 HEC-HMS Hydrologic Simulations for Discharge

Computations using PAGASA RIDF Curves
3.3.1 Discharge Computation using Rainfall-Runoff Hydrologic Model
The calibrated Rainfall-Runoff Hydrologic Model for the Davao River Basin using WMS and
HEC-HMS was used to simulate the flow for the five return periods, namely, 5-, 10-, 25-, 50- and
100-year RIDFs. Time-series data of the precipitation data using the Davao RIDF curves were
encoded to HEC-HMS for the aforementioned return periods, wherein each return period cor-
responds to a scenario. This process was performed for Waan Bridge. The output for each
simulation was an outflow hydrograph from that result, the total inflow to the floodplain and
time difference between the peak outflow and peak precipitation could be determined.
3.3.2 Discharge Computation using Dr. Horritt’s Recommended Hy-

drological Method
The required data to be accumulated for the implementation of Dr. Horrit’s method is shown
on Figure 17.
Figure 17. Different data needed as input for HEC-HMS discharge simulation using Dr. Hor-
ritt’s recommended hydrology method
19
Methodology
Flows from streams were computed using the hydrology method developed by the flood
modeling component with Dr. Matt Horritt, a British hydrologist that specializes in flood re-
search. The methodology was based on an approach developed by CH2M Hill and Horritt Con-
sulting for Taiwan which has been successfully validated in a region with meteorology and
hydrology similar to the Philippines. It utilizes the SCS curve number and unit hydrograph
method to have an accurate approximation of river discharge data from measurable catch-
ment parameters.
3.3.2.1 Determination of Catchment Properties

RADARSAT DTM data for the different areas of the Philippines were compiled with the aid of
ArcMap. RADARSAT satellites provide advance geospatial information and these were pro-
cessed in the forms of shapefiles and layers that are readable and can be analyzed by ArcMap.
These shapefiles are digital vectors that store geometric locations.
The watershed flow length is defined as the longest drainage path within the catchment,
measured from the top of the watershed to the point of the outlet. With the tools provided
by the ArcMap program and the data from RADARSAT DTM, the longest stream was selected
and its geometric property, flow length, was then calculated in the program.
The area of the watershed is determined with the longest stream as the guide. The compiled
RADARSAT data has a shapefile with defined small catchments based on mean elevation.
These parameters were used in determining which catchments, along with the area, belong
in the upper watershed.
Figure 18. Delineation of upper watershed for Davao floodplain discharge computation
20
Methodology
The value of the curve number was obtained using the RADARSAT data that contains infor-
mation of the Philippine national curve number map. An ArcMap tool was used to determine
the average curve number of the area bounded by the upper watershed shapefile. The same
method was implemented in determining the average slope using RADARSAT with slope data
for the whole country.
After determining the curve number (CN), the maximum potential retention (S) was deter-
mined by Equation 2.
Equation 2. Determination of maximum potential retention using the average curve number
of the catchment
The watershed length (L), average slope (Y) and maximum potential retention (S) are used
to estimate the lag time of the upper watershed as illustrated in Equation 3.
Equation 3. Lag Time Equation Calibrated for Philippine Setting

Finally, the final parameter that will be derived is the storm profile. The synoptic station which
covers the majority of the upper watershed was identified. Using the RIDF data, the incremen-
tal values of rainfall in millimeter per 0.1 hour was used as the storm profile.
3.3.2.2 HEC-HMS Implementation
With all the parameters available, HEC-HMS was then utilized. Obtained values from the pre-
vious section were used as input and a brief simulation would result in the tabulation of dis-
charge results per time interval. The maximum discharge and time-to-peak for the whole sim-
ulation as well as the river discharge hydrograph were used for the flood simulation process.
The time series results (discharge per time interval) were stored as HYD files for input in FLO-
2D GDS Pro.
21
Methodology
Figure 19. HEC-HMS simulation discharge results using Dr. Horritt’s Method
3.3.2.3 Discharge validation against other estimates
As a general rule, the river discharge of a 2-year rain return, QMED, should approximately be
equal to the bankful discharge, Qbankful, of the river. This assumes that the river is in equilibri-
um, with its deposition being balanced by erosion. Since the simulations of the river discharge
are done for 5-, 25-, and 100-year rainfall return scenarios, a simple ratio for the 2-year and
5-year return was computed with samples from actual discharge data of different rivers. It
was found out to have a constant of 0.88. This constant, however, should still be continuously
checked and calibrated when necessary.
Equation 4. Ratio of river discharge of a 5-year rain return to a 2-year rain return scenario from
measured discharge data
For the discharge calculation to pass the validation using the bankful method, Equation 5
must be satisfied.
Equation 5. Discharge validation equation using bankful method
The bankful discharge was estimated using channel width (w), channel depth (h), bed slope
(S) and Manning’s constant (n). Derived from the Manning’s Equation, the equation for the
bankful discharge is by Equation 6.
22
Methodology
Equation 6. Bankful discharge equation using measurable channel parameters
3.4 Hazard and Flow Depth Mapping using FLO-2D

3.4.1 Floodplain Delineation
The boundaries of subbasins within the floodplain were delineated based on elevation values
given by the DEM. Each subbasin is marked by ridges dividing catchment areas. These catch-
ments were delineated using a set of ArcMap tools compiled by Al Duncan, a UK Geomatics
Specialist, into a single processing model. The tool allows ArcMap to compute for the flow
direction and acceleration based on the elevations provided by the DEM.
Running the tool creates features representing large, medium-sized, and small streams, as
well as large, medium-sized, and small catchments. For the purpose of this particular model,
the large, medium-sized, and small streams were set to have an area threshold of 100,000sqm,
50,000sqm, and 10,000sqm respectively. These thresholds define the values where the algo-
rithm refers to in delineating a trough in the DEM as a stream feature, i.e. a large stream
feature should drain a catchment area totalling 100,000 sqm to be considered as such. These
values differ from the standard values used (10,000sqm, 1,000 sqm and 100sqm) to limit the
detail of the project, as well as the file sizes, allowing the software to process the data faster.
The tool also shows the direction in which the water is going to flow across the catchment
area. This information was used as the basis for delineating the floodplain. The entire area
of the floodplain was subdivided into several zones in such a way that it can be processed
properly. This was done by grouping the catchments together, taking special account of the
inflows and outflows of water across the entire area. To be able to simulate actual conditions,
all the catchments comprising a particular computational domain were set to have outflows
that merged towards a single point. The area of each subdivision was limited to 250,000 grids
or less to allow for an optimal simulation in FLO-2D GDS Pro. Larger models tend to run longer,
while smaller models may not be as accurate as a large one.
3.4.2 Flood Model Generation

The software used to run the simulation is FLO-2D GDS Pro. It is a GIS integrated software tool
that creates an integrated river and floodplain model by simulating the flow of the water over
a system of square grid elements.
After loading the shapefile of the subcatchment onto FLO-2D, 10 meter by 10 meter grids that
encompassed the entire area of interest were created.
The boundary for the area was set by defining the boundary grid elements. This can either be
23
Methodology
done by defining each element individually, or by drawing a line that traces the boundaries of
the subcatchment. The grid elements inside of the defined boundary were considered as the
computational area in which the simulation will be run.
Figure 20. Screenshot showing how boundary grid elements are defined by line
Elevation data was imported in the form of the DEM gathered through LiDAR. These eleva-
tion points in PTS format were extrapolated into the model, providing an elevation value for
each grid element.
Figure 21. Screenshots of PTS files when loaded into the FLO-2D program
24
Methodology
The floodplain is predominantly composed of rice fields, which have a Manning coefficient
of 0.15. All the inner grid elements were selected and the Manning coefficient of 0.15 was as-
signed. To differentiate the streams from the rest of the floodplain, a shapefile containing all
the streams and rivers in the area were imported into the software. The shapefile was gener-
ated using Al Duncan’s catchment tool for ArcMap. The streams were then traced onto their
corresponding grid elements.
These grid elements were all selected and assigned a Manning coefficient of 0.03. The DEM
and aerial imagery were also used as bases for tracing the streams and rivers.
Figure 22. Areal image of Davao floodplain
25
Methodology
Figure 23. Screenshot of Manning’s n-value rendering

After assigning Manning coefficients for each grid, the infiltration parameters were identified.
Green-Ampt infiltration method by W. Heber Green and G.S Ampt were used for all the mod-
els. The initial saturations applied to the model were 0.99, 0.8, and 0.7 for 100-year, 25-year,
and 5-year rain return periods respectively. These initial saturations were used in the compu-
tation of the infiltration value.
The Green-Ampt infiltration method by W. Heber Green and G.S Ampt method is based on a
simple physical model in which the equation parameter can be related to physical properties
of the soil. Physically, Green and Ampt assumed that the soil was saturated behind the wet-
ting front and that one could define some “effective” matric potential at the wetting front
(Kirkham, 2005). Basically, the system is assumed to consist of a uniformly wetted near-sat-
urated transmission zone above a sharply defined wetting front of constant pressure head
(Diamond & Shanley, 2003).
The next step was to allocate inflow nodes based on the locations of the outlets of the streams
from the upper watershed. The inflow values came from the computed discharges that were
input as hyd files.
Outflow nodes were allocated for the model. These outflow nodes show the locations where
the water received by the watershed is discharged. The water that will remain in the water-
shed will result to flooding on low lying areas.
For the models to be able to simulate actual conditions, the inflow and outflow of each com-
putational domain should be indicated properly. In situations wherein water flows from one
subcatchment to the other, the corresponding models are processed one after the other. The
26
Methodology
outflow generated by the source subcatchment was used as inflow for the subcatchment
area that it flows into.
The standard simulation time used to run each model is the time-to-peak (TP) plus an addition-
al 12 hours. This gives enough time for the water to flow into and out of the model area, illus-
trating the complete process from entry to exit as shown in the hydrograph. The additional
12 hours allows enough time for the water to drain fully into the next subcatchment. After all
the parameters were set, the model was run through FLO-2D GDS Pro.
3.4.3 Flow Depth and Hazard Map Simulation
After running the flood map simulation in FLO-2D GDS Pro, FLO-2D Mapper Pro was used to
read the resulting hazard and flow depth maps. The standard input values for reading the
simulation results are shown on Figure 24.
Figure 24. Flo-2D Mapper Pro General Procedure
In order to produce the hazard maps, set input for low maximum depth as 0.2 m, and vh,
product of maximum velocity and maximum depth ( m2/s ), as greater than or equal to zero.
The program will then compute for the flood inundation and will generate shapefiles for the
hazard and flow depth scenario.
27
Methodology
Figure 25. Davao Floodplain Generated Hazard Maps using FLO-2D Mapper
Figure 26. Davao floodplain generated flow depth map using FLO-2D Mapper
28
Methodology
3.4.4 Hazard Map and Flow Depth Map Creation
The final procedure in creating the maps is to prepare them with the aid of ArcMap. The gen-
erated shapefiles from FLO-2D Mapper Pro were opened in ArcMap. The basic layout of a
hazard map is shown in Figure 27. The same map elements are also found in a flow depth map.
ELEMENTS
1. River Basin Name
2. Hazard/Flow Depth
Shapefile
3. Provincial Inset
4. Philippine Inset
5. Hi-Res image of the
area
6. North Arrow
7. Scale text and Bar
Figure 27. Basic Layout and Elements of the Hazard Maps
29
Results and Discussion
31
4.1 Efficiency of HEC-HMS Rainfall-Runoff Models cali-

brated based on field survey and gauges data
Figure 28. Outflow Hydrograph produced by the HEC-HMS model compared with observed
outflow
After calibrating the Davao HEC-HMS river basin model, its accuracy was measured against
the observed values. The comparison between the two discharge data are shown in Figure 28.
The Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) method aggregates the individual differences of these
two measurements. It was identified at 15.11924.
The Nash-Sutcliffe (E) method was also used to assess the predictive power of the model.
Here the optimal value is 1. The model attained an efficiency coefficient of 0.604049.
A positive Percent Bias (PBIAS) indicates a model’s propensity towards under-prediction.

Negative values indicate bias towards over-prediction. Again, the optimal value is 0. In the
model, the PBIAS is -25.30.
The Observation Standard Deviation Ratio, RSR, is an error index. A perfect model attains a
value of 0. The model has an RSR value of 0.63.
The calibrated models of the other discharge points are used in flood forecasting. DREAM
Program offers the LGUs and other disaster mitigation agencies a water level forecast tool,
which can be found on the DREAM website.
32
Figure 29. Sample DREAM Water Level Forecast
Given the predicted and real-time actual water level on specific AWLS, possible river flooding
can be monitored and information can be disseminated to LGUs. This will help in the early
evacuation of the probable affected communities. The calibrated models can also be used for
flood inundation mapping.
4.2 Calculated Outflow hydrographs and Discharge

Values for different Rainfall Return Periods
4.2.1 Hydrograph using the Rainfall-Runoff Model
The outflow of Davao using the Davao station Rainfall Intensity-Duration-Frequency curves
(RIDF) in 5 different return periods (5-year, 10-year, 25-year, 50-year, and 100-year rainfall time
series) based on PAGASA data are shown in Figures 30-34. The simulation results reveal signif-
icant increase in outflow magnitude as the rainfall intensity increases for a range of durations
and return periods.
33
In the 5-year return period graph, the peak outflow is 357.5 cms. This occurs 7 hours and 30
minutes after the peak precipitation of 25.1 mm, as shown on Figure 30.
Figure 30. Outflow hydrograph generated using the Davao 5-Year RIDF in HEC-HMS
In the 10-year return period graph, the peak outflow is 357cms. This occurs 7 hours after the
peak precipitation of 28.8 mm, as shown on Figure 31.
34
In the 50-year return period graph, the peak outflow is 673 cms. This occurs 6 hours and 20
minutes after the peak precipitation of 37 mm, as shown on Figure 33.
35
A summary of the total precipitation, peak rainfall, peak outflow and time to peak of Davao
discharge using the Davao Rainfall Intensity-Duration-Frequency curves (RIDF) in five differ-
ent return periods is shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Summary of Davao discharge using Davao Station Rainfall Intensity Duration
Frequency (RIDF)
Total Precipita- Peak rainfall Peak outflow
RIDF Period Time to Peak
tion (mm) (mm) (cms)
7 hours,
5-Year 121.26 25.1 247.2
30 minutes
10-Year 140.49 28.8 357.5 7 hours
6 hours,
25-Year 165.65 33.5 527
30 minutes
6 hours,
50-Year 183.55 37 673
20 minutes
6 hours,
100-Year 202.15 40.5 850.7
10 minutes
36
4.2.2 Discharge Data using Dr. Horritt’s Recommended Hydrological
Method
The river discharge values using Dr. Horritt’s recommended hydrological method are shown
in Figure 35 and the peak discharge values are summarized in Table 3.
Figure 35. Outflow hydrograph generated using the Davao 5-, 25-, 100-Year RIDF in HEC-HMS
Table 3. Summary of Davao river discharge using the recommended hydrological method
by Dr. Horritt
RIDF Period Peak discharge (cms) Time-to-peak
5-Year 1758.6 23 hours, 20 minutes
The comparison of discharge values obtained from HEC-HMS, QMED, and from the bankful
discharge method, Qbankful, are shown in Table 4. Using values from the DTM of Davao, the
bankful discharge for the river was computed.
37
Table 4. Validation of river discharge estimate using the bankful method
Discharge Point Qbankful, cms QMED, cms Validation
Davao (1) 1501.82 1758.6 Pass
The value from the HEC-HMS discharge estimate was able to satisfy the condition for validat-
ing the computed discharge using the bankful method. Since the computed value is based on
theory, the actual discharge values were still used for flood modeling but will need further
investigation for the purpose of validation. It is recommended, therefore, to use the actual
value of the river discharge for higher-accuracy modeling.
4.3 Flood Hazard and Flow Depth Maps

The following images are the hazard and flow depth maps for the 5-, 25-, and 100-year rain
return scenarios of the Davao river basin.
38
Flood Hazard Maps and Flow Depth Maps
Figure 36. 100-year Flood Hazard Map for Davao River Basin
39
Results and Discussion Figure 37. 100-year Flow Depth Map for Davao River Basin
40
41
42
43
44
Bibliography
• Aquaveo. (2012). Watershed Modeling - HEC HMS Interface. Aquaveo.
• Feldman, A. D. (2000). Hydrologic Modeling System HEC-HMS Technical Reference Manu-

al. Davis, CA: US Army Corps of Engineers - Hydrologic Engineering Center.
• FLO-2D Software, I. Flo-2D Reference Manual. FLO-2D Software, Inc.
• Merwade, V. (2012). Terrain Processing and HMS- Model Development using GeoHMS. La-
fayette, Indiana.
• Santillan, J. (2011). Profile and Cross Section Surveys, Inflow measurement and flood mod-
eling of Surigao River, Surigao City for Flood Hazard Assessment Purposes. Quezon City:
Training Center for Applied Geodesy and Photogrammetry (TCAGP).
• Scharffenberg, W. A., & Fleming, M. J. (2010). Hydrologic Modeling System HEC-HMS Us-
er’s Manual. Davis, California: U.S Army Corps of Engineers - Hydrologic Engineering Cen-
ter.
45
Appendix
47
48
Appendix A. Davao Model Basin Parameters
Clark Unit Hydro- Recession
SCS Curve Number Loss
graph Transform Baseflow
Basin
Time of
Num- Initial Ab- Imper- Storage Initial Dis-
Curve Concen- Recession Threshold Ratio to
ber straction vious Coeffi- Initial Type charge
Number tration Constant Type Peak
(mm) (%) cient (HR) (M3/S)
(HR)
Ratio to
Appendix
10B 18.721 69.986 0 1.6317 3.0776 Discharge 0.0181412 0.0240899 0.01

Peak
Ratio to
11B 154.22 49.133 0 3.3634 3.9275 Discharge 0.0559617 0.0361349 0.01
Peak
Ratio to
12B 204.87 73.143 0 1.0068 3.4463 Discharge 0.0201226 0.0780847 0.01
Peak
Ratio to
13B 228.27 70.461 0 1.578 4.0667 Discharge 0.0406689 0.0361349 0.01
Peak
Ratio to
14B 499.00 46.366 0 0.66865 1.7528 Discharge 0.0126843 0.0361349 0.01
Peak
Ratio to
15B 41.812 46.27 0 1.6286 3.0206 Discharge 0.0207894 0.0361349 0.01
Peak
Ratio to
16B 255.12 73.143 0 0.33979 1.2357 Discharge 0.0117811 0.053117 0.01
Peak
Ratio to
17B 80.399 72.086 0 0.15754 0.60883 Discharge 0.0045867 0.0361349 0.01
Peak
Ratio to
18B 499.00 42.289 0 0.57605 1.5099 Discharge 0.0142640 0.0361349 0.01
Peak
Ratio to
19B 94.017 73.143 0 0.7432 1.2473 Discharge 0.0153315 0.0361349 0.01
Peak
Ratio to
1B 335.59 69.302 0 0.6485 1.707 Discharge 0.0046062 0.0361349 0.01
Peak
Basin
Time of
Appendix

(HR)
Ratio to
20B 176.37 33.016 0 1.5041 2.703 Discharge 0.0214370 0.0361349 0.01
Peak
Ratio to
21B 40.898 30.116 0 1.0347 2.7207 Discharge 0.0178965 0.0361349 0.01
Peak
Ratio to
22B 27.412 49.098 0 0.93985 1.645 Discharge 0.0192448 0.0361349 0.01
Peak
Ratio to
23B 50.051 47.611 0 3.5547 21.382 Discharge 0.0778584 0.18293 0.01
Peak
Ratio to
24B 499.00 49.133 0 1.8488 5.0041 Discharge 0.0347289 0.0531184 0.01
Peak
Ratio to
25B 244.42 49.089 0 1.8276 4.7867 Discharge 0.0237172 0.18293 0.01
Peak
Ratio to
26B 32.000 49.082 0 2.6675 5.9384 Discharge 0.0248798 0.12691 0.01
Peak
Ratio to
27B 51.219 49.138 0 0.7742 3.0636 Discharge 0.0183919 0.0361349 0.01
Peak
Ratio to
28B 110.01 32.966 0 2.2861 6.1157 Discharge 0.0893548 0.18293 0.01
Peak
Ratio to
29B 146.47 46.282 0 0.53045 1.3937 Discharge 0.0327274 0.18293 0.01
Peak
Ratio to
2B 83.539 46.35 0 3.3269 2.5325 Discharge 0.0248253 0.1269 0.01
Peak
49
50
Basin
Time of
(HR)
Ratio to
30B 499.00 37.48 0 2.164 5.6727 Discharge 0.0328998 0.0531184 0.01
Appendix
Peak
Ratio to
31B 1.2484 73.143 0 3.5553 9.3422 Discharge 0.0269480 0.0361349 0.01
Peak
Ratio to
32B 499.00 24.081 0 1.4386 3.7711 Discharge 0.0488904 0.268905 0.01
Peak
Ratio to
33B 499.00 37.507 0 2.6642 4.2565 Discharge 0.0543686 0.268905 0.01
Peak
Ratio to
34B 499.00 27.034 0 1.2079 2.154 Discharge 0.0239689 0.403368 0.01
Peak
Ratio to
35B 499.00 35.745 0 1.2824 3.3617 Discharge 0.0247704 0.274407 0.01
Peak
Ratio to
36B 499.00 41.752 0 2.0422 5.3479 Discharge 0.0386023 0.9261 0.01
Peak
Ratio to
37B 499.00 53.436 0 0.74525 1.9534 Discharge 0.0046294 0.9261 0.01
Peak
Ratio to
38B 499.00 23.225 0 1.0714 2.8085 Discharge 0.0149046 0.245721 0.01
Peak
Ratio to
39B 41.965 49.107 0 0.41346 2.8877 Discharge 0.0193250 0.552888 0.01
Peak
Ratio to
3B 18.832 31.623 0 1.9961 28.474 Discharge 0.0217283 0.18293 0.01
Peak
Basin
Time of
Appendix

(HR)
Ratio to
40B 499.00 41.48 0 1.1938 3.1183 Discharge 0.0247258 0.593628 0.01
Peak
Ratio to
41B 301.47 72.086 0 0.28646 0.51081 Discharge 0.0109324 0.9261 0.01
Peak
Ratio to
42B 18.843 32.87 0 5.4911 9.8709 Discharge 0.0423288 0.55566 0.01
Peak
Ratio to
43B 187.05 32.611 0 0.5266 0.93907 Discharge 0.0144798 0.6174 0.01
Peak
Ratio to
44B 18.712 49.082 0 0.31789 1.8758 Discharge 0.0223631 0.9261 0.01
Peak
Ratio to
45B 499.00 33.053 0 1.7764 4.6565 Discharge 0.0187994 0.6174 0.01
Peak
Ratio to
46B 499.00 37.732 0 0.23566 0.61772 Discharge 0.0133821 0.9261 0.01
Peak
Ratio to
47B 499.00 34.643 0 2.1308 5.5857 Discharge 0.0224376 0.9261 0.01
Peak
Ratio to
48B 499.00 37.584 0 1.2522 3.2827 Discharge 0.0160738 0.9261 0.01
Peak
Ratio to
49B 499.00 51.298 0 1.9524 5.1178 Discharge 0.0135748 0.9261 0.01
Peak
Ratio to
4B 62.617 47.348 0 1.7855 7.1856 Discharge 0.0269453 0.63 0.01
Peak
51
52
Basin
Time of
(HR)
Ratio to
50B 499.00 37.445 0 1.751 4.5898 Discharge 0.0189833 0.6174 0.01
Appendix
Peak
Ratio to
51B 499.00 49.964 0 0.96105 3.7603 Discharge 0.0126261 0.9261 0.01
Peak
Ratio to
52B 499.00 49.964 0 1.6436 4.2024 Discharge 0.0167358 0.9261 0.01
Peak
Ratio to
53B 499.00 42.8 0 2.5567 4.487 Discharge 0.0244345 0.605052 0.01
Peak
Ratio to
54B 499.00 41.534 0 1.7719 4.6473 Discharge 0.0187666 0.9261 0.01
Peak
Ratio to
55B 499.00 49.964 0 2.6384 6.916 Discharge 0.0216828 0.9261 0.01
Peak
Ratio to
56B 499.00 49.964 0 0.47495 1.8302 Discharge 0.0086123 0.945 0.01
Peak
Ratio to
5B 77.988 47.155 0 2.8441 7.308 Discharge 0.0388572 0.945 0.01
Peak
Ratio to
6B 27.572 32.415 0 1.7756 1.5117 Discharge 0.0327418 0.940275 0.01
Peak
Ratio to
7B 499.00 49.302 0 0.7193 1.8855 Discharge 0.0158473 0.940275 0.01
Peak
Ratio to
8B 18.564 32.393 0 0.71065 2.8034 Discharge 0.0089763 0.945 0.01
Peak
Basin
Appendix
Time of
(HR)
Ratio to
9B 18.557 48.191 0 1.4982 2.5145 Discharge 0.0260344 0.945 0.01
Peak
53
Appendix
Appendix B. Davao Model Reach Parameters

Muskingum Cunge Channel Routing
Reach
Length Man- Side
Number Time Step Method Slope Shape Width
(m) ning's n Slope
100R Automatic Fixed Interval 24484.7 0.02 0.0001 Trapezoid 15 45
54
Appendix
Muskingum Cunge Channel Routing

Reach
Number Length Manning's Side
Time Step Method Slope Shape Width
(m) n Slope
55
Appendix
Appendix C. Davao Floodplain HEC-HMS Simulation

DIRECT FLOW (cms)
Time (hr) 100-yr 25-yr 5-year Time (hr) 100-yr 25-yr 5-year
0 0 0 0 7.33333333 0 0 0
0.16666667 0 0 0 7.5 0 0 0
0.33333333 0 0 0 7.66666667 0 0 0
0.5 0 0 0 7.83333333 0 0 0
0.66666667 0 0 0 8 0 0 0
0.83333333 0 0 0 8.16666667 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 8.33333333 0 0 0
1.16666667 0 0 0 8.5 0 0 0
1.33333333 0 0 0 8.66666667 0 0 0
1.5 0 0 0 8.83333333 0 0 0
1.66666667 0 0 0 9 0 0 0
1.83333333 0 0 0 9.16666667 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 9.33333333 0 0 0
2.16666667 0 0 0 9.5 0 0 0
2.33333333 0 0 0 9.66666667 0 0 0
2.5 0 0 0 9.83333333 0 0 0
2.66666667 0 0 0 10 0 0 0
2.83333333 0 0 0 10.1666667 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 10.3333333 0 0 0
3.16666667 0 0 0 10.5 0 0 0
3.33333333 0 0 0 10.6666667 0.1 0 0
3.5 0 0 0 10.8333333 0.1 0 0
3.66666667 0 0 0 11 0.3 0.1 0
3.83333333 0 0 0 11.1666667 0.7 0.3 0
4 0 0 0 11.3333333 1.3 0.6 0.1
4.16666667 0 0 0 11.5 2.8 1.4 0.4
4.33333333 0 0 0 11.6666667 6.1 3.5 1.3
4.5 0 0 0 11.8333333 14 9 4.2
4.66666667 0 0 0 12 25 16.7 8.5
4.83333333 0 0 0 12.1666667 38 26 13.7
5 0 0 0 12.3333333 53.2 36.7 19.7
5.16666667 0 0 0 12.5 69.8 48.5 26.2
5.33333333 0 0 0 12.6666667 88.9 62 33.6
5.5 0 0 0 12.8333333 113.3 79.3 43.3
5.66666667 0 0 0 13 142.7 100.5 55.3
5.83333333 0 0 0 13.1666667 175.5 124.1 68.8
56
Appendix
DIRECT FLOW (cms)

6 0 0 0 13.3333333 211.2 149.9 83.6
6.16666667 0 0 0 13.5 248.7 177 99.1
6.33333333 0 0 0 13.6666667 287.8 205.4 115.4
6.5 0 0 0 13.8333333 329.6 235.6 132.8
6.66666667 0 0 0 14 374.9 268.4 151.7
6.83333333 0 0 0 14.1666667 422.5 303 171.8
7 0 0 0 14.3333333 472.1 339.1 192.8
7.16666667 0 0 0 14.5 523.3 376.3 214.4
14.6666667 576.1 414.7 236.6 22.5 3981.9 2932.2 1743.8
14.8333333 631.4 454.8 259.8 22.6666667 3988.9 2938.4 1748.6
15 691.5 498.4 285.1 22.8333333 3993.7 2942.9 1752.5
15.1666667 755.3 544.9 312.2 23 3996.5 2946 1755.5
15.3333333 821.7 593.2 340.3 23.1666667 3997.1 2947.5 1757.7
15.5 890.7 643.4 369.5 23.3333333 3994 2946.5 1758.6
15.6666667 961.4 694.9 399.5 23.5 3983.4 2940 1756.2
15.8333333 1035 748.3 430.5 23.6666667 3966.9 2929 1751
16 1113.6 805.4 463.6 23.8333333 3946.5 2915 1744.1
16.1666667 1197.7 866.7 499.3 24 3922.5 2898.4 1735.6
16.3333333 1285.6 930.8 536.7 24.1666667 3896.6 2880.4 1726.1
16.5 1376.6 997.2 575.5 24.3333333 3868.8 2860.9 1715.9
16.6666667 1469.9 1065.3 615.3 24.5 3838.7 2839.8 1704.5
16.8333333 1565.3 1134.9 655.9 24.6666667 3806.7 2817.1 1692.2
17 1663.9 1206.8 697.9 24.8333333 3773.1 2793.3 1679.2
17.1666667 1767.6 1282.6 742.2 25 3738.4 2768.5 1665.5
17.3333333 1874.7 1360.9 788.2 25.1666667 3702.7 2743 1651.4
17.5 1984.1 1441.1 835.4 25.3333333 3665.9 2716.7 1636.8
17.6666667 2095.5 1522.9 883.6 25.5 3627.8 2689.5 1621.6
17.8333333 2207.3 1605 932.1 25.6666667 3587.7 2660.7 1605.6
18 2318.5 1686.9 980.7 25.8333333 3546.1 2630.9 1588.8
18.1666667 2426.8 1766.7 1028.1 26 3503.3 2600.1 1571.4
18.3333333 2532.2 1844.4 1074.3 26.1666667 3459.3 2568.5 1553.6
18.5 2635.7 1920.8 1119.9 26.3333333 3414.3 2536.1 1535.3
18.6666667 2737.7 1996.2 1164.9 26.5 3367.6 2502.5 1516.4
18.8333333 2838.5 2070.8 1209.6 26.6666667 3318 2466.8 1496.1
19 2937.2 2144 1253.6 26.8333333 3265.8 2429.1 1474.7
19.1666667 3031 2213.7 1295.8 27 3211.7 2390.1 1452.4
19.3333333 3118.1 2278.5 1334.9 27.1666667 3156.1 2349.9 1429.4
19.5 3200.7 2339.9 1372 27.3333333 3099.3 2308.8 1405.9
57
Appendix
DIRECT FLOW (cms)

19.6666667 3280.1 2398.9 1407.8 27.5 3041.1 2266.6 1381.8
19.8333333 3356.8 2456.1 1442.5 27.6666667 2980.6 2222.8 1356.7
20 3431.2 2511.7 1476.5 27.8333333 2916.9 2176.6 1330.1
20.1666667 3501.7 2564.6 1509 28 2851.2 2128.8 1302.5
20.3333333 3564.1 2611.5 1537.9 28.1666667 2784.1 2079.9 1274.2
20.5 3620.7 2654.1 1564.2 28.3333333 2715.8 2030.1 1245.3
20.6666667 3673.6 2693.9 1588.9 28.5 2647.4 1980.2 1216.2
20.8333333 3722.7 2730.9 1611.9 28.6666667 2579.6 1930.4 1187.1
21 3769.4 2766.3 1634.1 28.8333333 2514.1 1882.4 1158.9
21.1666667 3812.3 2799.1 1654.9 29 2450.3 1835.6 1131.4
21.3333333 3848.5 2826.9 1672.7 29.1666667 2387.4 1789.4 1104.2
21.5 3877.9 2849.6 1687.5 29.3333333 2325.7 1744 1077.4
21.6666667 3902.8 2869 1700.2 29.5 2264.6 1699 1050.7
21.8333333 3924 2885.5 1711.2 29.6666667 2204.9 1654.9 1024.5
22 3942.5 2900.1 1721.1 29.8333333 2148.7 1613.3 999.6
22.1666667 3958.9 2913.2 1730.1 30 2096 1574.4 976.4
22.3333333 3972.3 2924.1 1737.8 30.1666667 2045.6 1537.1 954.1
30.3333333 1996.9 1501.1 932.6 38.1666667 646.3 490 310.4
30.5 1949.3 1465.9 911.5 38.3333333 630.6 478.2 302.9
30.6666667 1902.6 1431.2 890.6 38.5 615.2 466.4 295.5
30.8333333 1857 1397.5 870.3 38.6666667 599.8 454.8 288.2
31 1813.2 1365 850.8 38.8333333 584.6 443.3 280.9
31.1666667 1770.6 1333.4 831.7 39 569.4 431.8 273.7
31.3333333 1728.8 1302.4 813.1 39.1666667 554.6 420.6 266.5
31.5 1687.6 1271.9 794.6 39.3333333 540.2 409.7 259.6
31.6666667 1647.1 1241.7 776.4 39.5 526.7 399.4 253
31.8333333 1607.4 1212.2 758.5 39.6666667 513.7 389.5 246.8
32 1569.4 1183.9 741.3 39.8333333 501.1 379.9 240.7
32.1666667 1532.6 1156.4 724.6 40 488.8 370.6 234.7
32.3333333 1496.6 1129.7 708.3 40.1666667 476.7 361.4 228.9
32.5 1461.4 1103.4 692.2 40.3333333 464.9 352.4 223.2
32.6666667 1426.9 1077.5 676.4 40.5 453.2 343.5 217.5
32.8333333 1393.2 1052.3 660.9 40.6666667 441.6 334.7 212
33 1361.2 1028.3 646.1 40.8333333 430.1 326 206.5
33.1666667 1331 1005.6 632.1 41 418.7 317.5 201.1
33.3333333 1302 983.8 618.6 41.1666667 407.6 309 195.7
33.5 1273.8 962.7 605.5 41.3333333 396.6 300.7 190.5
33.6666667 1246.3 942 592.7 41.5 386.2 292.8 185.4
58
Appendix
DIRECT FLOW (cms)

33.8333333 1219.2 921.7 580.1 41.6666667 376.3 285.3 180.7
34 1192.4 901.5 567.6 41.8333333 366.8 278.1 176.1
34.1666667 1165.8 881.6 555.3 42 357.7 271.2 171.7
34.3333333 1139.4 861.8 543 42.1666667 348.9 264.5 167.5
34.5 1113.3 842.2 530.9 42.3333333 340.2 257.9 163.3
34.6666667 1087.2 822.7 518.8 42.5 331.7 251.4 159.2
34.8333333 1061.5 803.3 506.8 42.6666667 323.2 245 155.2
35 1036.2 784.3 495 42.8333333 314.8 238.7 151.2
35.1666667 1011.8 765.9 483.5 43 306.6 232.4 147.2
35.3333333 988.3 748.2 472.5 43.1666667 298.4 226.3 143.3
35.5 965.3 730.9 461.7 43.3333333 290.3 220.2 139.5
35.6666667 942.6 713.8 451 43.5 282.5 214.2 135.8
35.8333333 920.3 697 440.5 43.6666667 275.1 208.6 132.2
36 898.2 680.4 430.1 43.8333333 268.2 203.4 128.9
36.1666667 876.3 663.9 419.8 44 261.6 198.4 125.7
36.3333333 854.6 647.5 409.6 44.1666667 255.3 193.6 122.6
36.5 832.9 631.2 399.4 44.3333333 249.2 188.9 119.7
36.6666667 811.4 615 389.3 44.5 243.1 184.3 116.8
36.8333333 790 598.9 379.3 44.6666667 237.2 179.8 113.9
37 768.9 583 369.3 44.8333333 231.4 175.4 111.1
37.1666667 748.5 567.6 359.6 45 225.6 171 108.3
37.3333333 729.6 553.2 350.5 45.1666667 219.8 166.7 105.6
37.5 711.8 539.7 342 45.3333333 214.2 162.4 102.9
37.6666667 694.7 526.8 333.8 45.5 208.7 158.2 100.3
37.8333333 678.3 514.3 325.8 45.6666667 203.3 154.1 97.7
38 662.1 502 318.1 45.8333333 198.2 150.3 95.2
46 193.3 146.6 92.9 53.1666667 64.9 49.2 31.1
46.1666667 188.7 143 90.6 53.3333333 63.3 48 30.4
46.3333333 184.1 139.6 88.4 53.5 61.7 46.8 29.6
46.5 179.7 136.2 86.3 53.6666667 60.2 45.6 28.9
46.6666667 175.3 132.9 84.2 53.8333333 58.7 44.5 28.1
46.8333333 171.1 129.7 82.1 54 57.2 43.3 27.4
47 166.8 126.4 80.1 54.1666667 55.8 42.3 26.7
47.1666667 162.6 123.3 78.1 54.3333333 54.5 41.3 26.1
47.3333333 158.4 120.1 76.1 54.5 53.2 40.3 25.5
47.5 154.3 117 74.1 54.6666667 52.1 39.5 24.9
47.6666667 150.3 113.9 72.2 54.8333333 51 38.6 24.4
47.8333333 146.4 111 70.3 55 50 37.8 23.9
59
Appendix
DIRECT FLOW (cms)

48 142.7 108.2 68.5 55.1666667 48.9 37 23.4
48.1666667 139.2 105.5 66.8 55.3333333 47.9 36.3 22.9
48.3333333 135.8 103 65.2 55.5 46.9 35.5 22.4
48.5 132.6 100.5 63.6 55.6666667 45.9 34.8 21.9
48.6666667 129.4 98 62.1 55.8333333 45 34 21.5
48.8333333 126.2 95.6 60.5 56 44 33.3 21
49 123.1 93.3 59.1 56.1666667 43.1 32.6 20.6
49.1666667 120 90.9 57.6 56.3333333 42.2 31.9 20.1
49.3333333 116.9 88.6 56.1 56.5 41.2 31.2 19.7
49.5 113.9 86.4 54.7 56.6666667 40.3 30.5 19.2
49.6666667 111 84.1 53.3 56.8333333 39.4 29.8 18.8
49.8333333 108.1 81.9 51.9 57 38.5 29.1 18.4
50 105.3 79.8 50.5 57.1666667 37.6 28.4 17.9
50.1666667 102.6 77.8 49.3 57.3333333 36.7 27.8 17.5
50.3333333 100.1 75.9 48 57.5 35.8 27.1 17.1
50.5 97.6 74 46.9 57.6666667 34.9 26.4 16.7
50.6666667 95.2 72.2 45.7 57.8333333 34.1 25.8 16.3
50.8333333 92.8 70.4 44.6 58 33.2 25.1 15.8
51 90.5 68.6 43.4 58.1666667 32.3 24.5 15.4
51.1666667 88.2 66.9 42.3 58.3333333 31.5 23.8 15
51.3333333 85.9 65.1 41.3 58.5 30.6 23.2 14.6
51.5 83.7 63.4 40.2 58.6666667 29.8 22.5 14.2
51.6666667 81.4 61.7 39.1 58.8333333 28.9 21.9 13.8
51.8333333 79.2 60.1 38.1 59 28.1 21.3 13.4
52 77.1 58.5 37.1 59.1666667 27.2 20.6 13.1
52.1666667 75.1 57 36.1 59.3333333 26.4 20 12.7
52.3333333 73.2 55.5 35.2 59.5 25.6 19.4 12.3
52.5 71.5 54.2 34.3 59.6666667 24.8 18.8 11.9
52.6666667 69.7 52.9 33.5 59.8333333 24 18.2 11.5
52.8333333 68.1 51.6 32.7 60 23.3 17.6 11.2
53 66.5 50.4 31.9
60

DREAM Flood Forecasting and Flood Hazard Mapping For Davao River Basin

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

DREAM Flood Forecasting and Flood Hazard Mapping For Davao River Basin

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

© University of the Philippines and the Department of Science and Technology 2015

For questions/queries regarding this report, contact:

Alfredo Mahar Francisco A. Lagmay, PhD.

Enrico C. Paringit, Dr. Eng.

National Library of the Philippines

ACDP Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler

1.1 About the DREAM Program

1.2 Objectives and Target Outputs

a) To acquire a national elevation and resource dataset at sufficient resolution

1.3 General Methodological Framework

Figure 1. The general methodological framework of the program

1.4 Scope of Work of the Flood Modeling Component

1.6 Operational Framework

Figure 3. Davao River Basin Location Map

Figure 4. Davao River Basin Soil Map

Figure 5. Davao River Basin Land Cover Map

3.1 Pre-processing and Data Used

Figure 6. Summary of data needed for the purpose of flood modeling

3.1.1 Elevation Data

3.1.1.1 Hydro Corrected SRTM DEM

3.1.1.2 LiDAR DEM

Figure 7 shows an image of the DEM generated through LiDAR.

3.1.2 Land Cover and Soil Type

Figure 9. Stitched Quickbird images for the Davao floodplain

3.1.3.1 Hydrometry for Waan Bridge, Davao City

3.1.3.2 Rainfall Intensity Duration Frequency

Figure 12. Davao Rainfall-Intensity Duration Frequency (RIDF) curves

3.1.4 Rating Curves

Equation 1. Rating Curve

3.2 Rainfall-Runoff Hydrologic Model Development

Figure 14. The Rainfall-Runoff Basin Model Development Scheme

Figure 15. Davao HEC-HMS Model domain generated by WMS

3.2.2 Basin Model Calibration

3.3 HEC-HMS Hydrologic Simulations for Discharge

3.3.2 Discharge Computation using Dr. Horritt’s Recommended Hy-

3.3.2.1 Determination of Catchment Properties

Equation 3. Lag Time Equation Calibrated for Philippine Setting

3.3.2.2 HEC-HMS Implementation

Equation 5. Discharge validation equation using bankful method

Equation 6. Bankful discharge equation using measurable channel parameters

3.4 Hazard and Flow Depth Mapping using FLO-2D

3.4.2 Flood Model Generation

Figure 22. Areal image of Davao floodplain

Figure 23. Screenshot of Manning’s n-value rendering

Figure 24. Flo-2D Mapper Pro General Procedure

Figure 27. Basic Layout and Elements of the Hazard Maps

4.1 Efficiency of HEC-HMS Rainfall-Runoff Models cali-

A positive Percent Bias (PBIAS) indicates a model’s propensity towards under-prediction.

Figure 29. Sample DREAM Water Level Forecast

4.2 Calculated Outflow hydrographs and Discharge

4.3 Flood Hazard and Flow Depth Maps

• Feldman, A. D. (2000). Hydrologic Modeling System HEC-HMS Technical Reference Manu-

• FLO-2D Software, I. Flo-2D Reference Manual. FLO-2D Software, Inc.

10B 18.721 69.986 0 1.6317 3.0776 Discharge 0.0181412 0.0240899 0.01

(mm) (%) cient (HR) (M3/S)

(mm) (%) cient (HR) (M3/S)

Appendix B. Davao Model Reach Parameters

Muskingum Cunge Channel Routing

Appendix C. Davao Floodplain HEC-HMS Simulation

DIRECT FLOW (cms)

DIRECT FLOW (cms)

DIRECT FLOW (cms)

DIRECT FLOW (cms)